|
National Radio Project1714 Franklin Street #100-251 • Oakland, CA 94612 • 510-251-1332ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. For permission to reproduce and/or reprint, please contact us. |
MAKING CONTACT Transcript: #49-99 Wired Schools: Education and Technology Phillip Babich: This week on Making Contact.... Jared Domer: Anyone can get on a computer and paste and cut and stuff, and it's not original art work...they didn't do it themselves. Todd Price: It's just wire, wire, wire, as fast as you can and as much as you can, and that is supposed to be some sort of positive, some good... Phillip Babich: On November 8, 1999, President Clinton held an on-line town meeting. Other Democratic public officials piped in via the Internet to extol the virtues of "new technologies" and the "new educational opportunities" they present. On this program, we take a look at education and technology. I'm Phillip Babich, your host this week on Making Contact, an international radio program seeking to create connections between people vital ideas and important information. The video images on President Clinton's laptop were a little jumpy, and some of the connections dropped out or failed altogether. But, there they were, Democrats from across the country talking on the Internet about education during a televised event: New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, Wisconsin state representative Antonio Riley, and Maryland's Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend. With no dissent, they made the pitch: high-speed Internet and videoconferencing connections are vital for today's classrooms. Such tele-fanfare has become quite common. But, according to Todd Price, an industry observer based at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison, these highly coordinated, technologically-dependent events are often used by high-tech companies to showcase new products and services. Todd Price: Behind the mantra of wiring the schools, new technologies are various corporate blueprints that run counter to the public school mission, and I am concerned that there isn't enough honest discussion by a number of the different politicians with regards to what that ultimately means in terms of reforming or reinventing public education. I believe they should be more honest about what they intend for the public schools. If, indeed, the public schools are to really change their mission, such that we start to track students toward data processing (some students), and other students towards more the management and a conception of how these technologies, systems are used in a globalized world, they should just say that. But that seems to be what is happening right now, and there's a lot of disingenuousness about it. Phillip Babich: Price adds that corporate executives and elected officials are running off to some of the poorest schools in the country to sell, or offer, technology as the best solution for improving education without thoroughly assessing the effects of the so-called "new technology" and the wave of commercial-sponsored material flooding classrooms, both poor and well-off. Todd Price: For example, when the various politicians and corporate executive officers go around and advocate the wonderful promise of the new technologies, where do they go? They go to some of the poorest schools in the country, for example, the Edison School in Washington, DC, right now. They point out how the new technology is going to vastly improve the chances and the lifetime opportunities of poor African Americans. I find it disingenuous to put out this idea that the technology alone is going too vastly improve the life and the economic opportunities of these folks. I think that I'd like to see the studies that prove that , that's the case. I think, in fact, what you're finding in this society, in this economy, where there is the greatest disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor. And where you are finding a great disparity in the funding for the schools for the bricks and the mortar, the overhead, the staff. I'm kind of incredulous that anybody would believe that hooking up some computers in various classrooms, and wiring them, is intended to change those disparities. Phillip Babich: In the short time span that the telecommunications industry has introduced sophisticated technologies into classrooms, it is difficult to gauge whether students are learning more as a result. Meanwhile, telecommunications companies are wiring schools, merely side-glancing at skeptics, but listening carefully to their customers, or educators. Dave Pacholczyk is a spokesperson for Ameritech, a 50 billion dollar company that provides local phone service and high-speed, broad-brand connections and videoconferencing technology to schools and businesses. Dave Pacholczyk: What we have heard as a company from educators in general is that they are extremely supportive of technology in the classroom. For one, it helps bridge the so-called digital divide between rich and poor students. When you are able to offer the same kinds of technology, high speed Internet access, for example, in a primarily minority inner city school, the same kind of technology, the same kind of access you do at a larger, a more suburban setting. You have given all students the access to the same kind of information, with the same kind of technology. That's bridging a gulf that had existed for quite some time. So what if it's a question of the application of communication technology in the classroom and their benefit, numerous other educators have cited benefits to the technology for them as educators, for the students primarily, and for the school systems at large. Phillip Babich: At the same time, we also hear stories that teachers would rather have chalk, for example. I know classrooms here in Oakland, California that don't have chalk, or textbooks, then computers. And do you think, is it Ameritech's point of view, that with the technology will come the other, kind of, basic necessities the classrooms need in inner cities in the United States. Dave Pacholczyk: No, it is our view that educators, as customers are asking for a number of different things, and that educators as customers turn to us for technology, which we provide. We are also a large corporate taxpayer in every one of our states, and those taxes, based on what state and local officials deign to spend it on, can be used for a number of different things, whether it's high speed Internet hookup, or textbooks. It's up to the local school boards, and local officials to make those decisions. Phillip Babich: I wonder if, it may seem in your mind to be backstepping just a little bit, but I want to make the argument that videoconferencing in the classrooms, like grade school classroooms, and junior high school classrooms, really is beneficial to the students. Why is that? Dave Pacholczyk: Well, here again, educators have told us already that they have access to more ...and you're citing one of a number of applications of technology. I will cite the more prevalent one is high speed access to the Internet, which I know in my own children's grade school or middle schools is far more used than is any kind of distance learning. There are, differences in approach that educators will take, and, as I said, we are providing what our customers, the educators in our communities are asking for. If it is high speed access to the Internet, we can provide that. If it is video conferencing, we can provide that. They're the ones who use that, use it to the fullest, whether it's to conduct in-service training, which I know many school boards do, and teaches at remote sites rather than shipping them across town or across county to ones school. They will do through distance learning the kind of training they would otherwise have done in person. Likewise, students can visit governmental institutions, other schools, schools of higher learning, and interact with a number of difference people through the distance learning networks. But again, you've cited one, I've cited another, there is as I've said, there is more use and more interest today in applications such as high speed access to the Internet. Phillip Babich: So, how is it that educators became such die-hard supporters of the Internet and broad-band technologies? According to Todd Price: telecommunication companies, including Ameritech, put a hard sell on educators and elected officials in the mid-Western United States in the early 1990s, promising evermore "educational options," and cut deals with school districts. In the case of Ameritech, that company then, called in favors from school district and elected officials, asking them to lobby for deregulation in the telecommunications industry. Todd Price: The manner in which they became this larger entity and the manner in which they accrued greater profit, albeit with some profit coming in from the schools, was more so by using the schools and using the argument that they could vastly improve the offerings and the curriculum and sharing and distributing virtual learning in schools. It was that promise that gave them the relaxed regulations and the favorable pricing climate environment to make just unheard of wealth. And so, in a way, the schools were used as a tool, as a real, I call it, as other people have, a slogan, "Connect the Schools" that was used to get them this new deregulated environment, where they can just reap in a lot of profits on a number of different applications that they're selling to the public and to large businesses. Phillip Babich: One of Ameritech's more direct lobbying efforts came in the form of a legislative session in Wisconsin. The company paid 1.5 million dollars for a special hearing on a bill to deregulate portions of the telecommunications industry. It passed. The company later came up with a telecommunications road show called "Super Schools." Todd Price Todd Price: What Ameritech did was they developed a very specific plan for winning public favor, winning officials, and winning teachers and students to this information revolution, and the legislation that followed. They presented a showcase called "Super Schools", and they took "Super Schools", this showcase, and the blue and white uniformed students, and the teacher on line, and the teacher at the other site on the big screen TV, and they took that to Columbus, they took that to Chicago, they took that to Milwaukee,...and they wowed people. Everybody thought this was a wonderful thing, and it was certainly moving into the 21st century. And folks that didn't understand it were, I felt, probably silent about it because they were made to feel like perhaps they were old fashioned and they didn't understand the technology. Of course, look at the kids. They love the technology. This is the climate, and this is the showcase that was used to win just unprecedented support among a number of diverse sectors, in looking for a way of pushing this legislation through. Now there were a handful of folks that were suggesting that perhaps we were going too fast, that perhaps we were speeding on the information superhighway, and we needed to take a good look ahead and see what would be the best way of making it favorable for all the parties involved, especially the citizenry. But the Ameritech's won the day. In Wisconsin clearly Ameritech was the biggest lobbier. And they paid very well for the bill that was written largely by them and by their supporters. Phillip Babich: Ameritech's response? Dave Pacholczyk says lobbying is just part of business... Dave Pacholczyk: When I hear this question, I'm often reminded of the line from the movie "Casablanca," where Louis, the French inspector, says to Rick, when he's closing down his café: "I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling going on here." I take it numerous people are shocked to find that public companies have public points of view, whether on public policy or on legislation. Yes, we do lobbying. We have for decades, as all public companies do. And in fact, many non-profit and other organizations do as well. It's something that we engage in, we have a business to run, and there's legislation that we support, and there's legislation we do not support. And we certainly make our point of view known to public officials. Stephanie Welch: You're listening to Making Contact, a production of the National Radio Project. If you'd like to get in touch with us, we'll be giving out our toll free number at the end of this broadcast. Phillip Babich: Langdon Winner is a Professor of Political Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, and author of several articles about society and technology. Andrew Zimmerman of Bruderhof Radio, spoke with Winner about his views on the use of computers and other information technology in schools. Langdon Winner: One thing that I find disturbing about the current push for computers in education and distance learning, for example, is that this enterprise has very little sense of what the ends of education are, what the purposes of teaching learning are all about. There are no new philosophies of education which have arisen in this new enterprise. Secondly, there's no consistent or coherent address to the question of what educational strategies make sense. And there's a tendency to set aside what everybody has known for a very long time, namely that in education the best single element are the encounters that students have with knowledgeable and inspired teachers...people able to open worlds of knowledge. and art, and science, and music, and literature, social studies, engineering...whatever the field. And instead there is these days to sort of put the cart before the horse, the instrument before the purpose, and to say: "Oh, computers, network computers are a kind of big magic, so we'll just start there." Andrew Zimmerman: Are you skeptical merely about the mis-use or overuse of technology in schools, or are you skeptical in some ways about the technology itself? In other words, are you a neo-Luddite or do you just have concerns about how this technology is being applied? Langdon Winner: Well I'm very much interested in people who use information machines creatively in their work. I know a lot of artists, composers, scientists, engineers and social scientists. They tend to be older and well along in their work, and they have learned somewhere the fundamentals, the basic orientation toward the world, toward the world of the knowledge that they're working within. What bothers me is the idea that educational technologies, including the computer, are a substitute for these fundamentals. There's a good deal of research that really goes back to the 1920s, which has produced a principle about educational technology. The principle is that of no significant difference, for decade after decade where people have looked at the use of movies, of tape recorders, of television, of personal computers, network computers, all kinds of educational technology which have been introduced since the time of Thomas Edison and his movie machine. The research has been consistent, which is that it doesn't matter which technologies you use to convey information, there's no significant difference in how much students learn. Andrew Zimmerman: Now you mention a number of studies that show that technology doesn't really improve the quality of education or give people a better education. Have there been any studies shown, or do you know of any examples where the use of technology has really hurt or hindered an education? I don't mean just the fact that the money is being diverted from arts or music, as you mentioned before, but where the actual use of technology maybe stifles creativity, or makes students, you know, less able to think creatively? Langdon Winner: Among educators that I know, who work closely with children, there are great many who would say that, given what the computer does, you know, these very powerful, expensive machines, if you ask, lets say, grade school students, or even junior high students, middle school students, to look at their learning in reading, writing, mathematics, scientific inquiry, and other basic subjects...as something that depends upon the use of high powered information, a machine. You know, what you're actually doing is insulting the ability of the student. What it says, in effect, is: "Well, you're not capable of having these resources internally. What you're going to need are these external resources, these powerful information machines." And I think what this does, and regardless of what any studies show...to me it's perfectly obvious that what we're doing is fostering a kind of pathological dependency. That we're not making students self-confident to sort of build the internal resources that they need as learners, as active inquirers, as shapers of the world that they're going to live in. Instead we're, in effect, creating highly dependent functionaries in a global economy. And I don't know why that idea is so appealing to people. Andrew Zimmerman: Now, some will argue that you need a certain level of computer literacy just to survive in the so-called "information age". How do you balance these two? How do you provide this technical proficiency without stifling creativity? Langdon Winner: Well, I think what one has to do is just draw reasonable boundaries. You know if one is, let's say, studying biology, you know, they one ought to have access to biological specimens and the teachers who care about biology. And not immediately rush to a CD-ROM that has lessons and pictures and so forth of living things. I think that in our time information machines have become a part of social life, a part of the workplace. What's problematic is the substitution for these machines for other domains of experience, to other domains of knowledge and practice. So I'm not opposed to the use of information machines. What I oppose is the woeful insertion of them prematurely into education and the various kinds of contemporary practice. Phillip Babich: Langdon Winner, professor of political science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. He spoke with Andrew Zimmerman. But, does the industry think that the introduction of high-speed information technologies could be "premature" for school kids? Ameritech's DavePacholczyk... Dave Pacholczyk: I'm not going to have a position on that. Again, this is in the eye of the customer, and as educators as customers, we'll be finding applications, and using those applications. I question the premise of a slowdown, almost a Luddite, view...of a technophobia, where technology for its own sake is in somehow inherently wrong. There have been numerous advances in technology in the classroom over the last hundred years. Telecommunications is just one of those technologies that has an application in the classroom. Computers are another one. The whole depth and breadth of the computer revolution over the last twenty years has grown into the classroom. Where my grade school students, my grade school children, have more powerful computers probably than I do on my desk right now. Phillip Babich: To find out how some students are doing without technology, Andrew Zimmerman visited a classroom that shifted its curricula away from computers and the Internet. Andrew Zimmerman: Heinrich Arnold is a middle school teacher in upstate New York. His school has drastically reduced the role of computers in their curriculum. Heinrich Arnold: Well, in the Woodcrest School, where I've been teaching for the past eight years, up to two years ago we'd pretty much kept up with the times as far as advancing our technologies, buying computers and software. And we bought a lot of the educational software... of course, there's grant money available to schools to purchase software. So we used it in science, we used it in teaching keyboarding, in history, math, reading. And we also used it a lot for, you might, we thought it was creative at that time, to generate papers and titles and pictures. And we also did quite a bit of research on it, like when kids would do research on different subject, it was quite easy to look on one of the search engines for the material you were looking for. We started to realize by teaching our children, our students, that what we were relying so heavily on computers was kind of an easy way out, a lazy attitude... it was very difficult for students to learn how to use indexes, to learn how to use the library, and also we were seeing a decrease in creativity in drawing and writing. So that is the underlying reason why we decided to scale back so drastically. Andrew Zimmerman: Critics say Arnold and his colleagues may be doing his students a disservice by isolating them from technology they will need to use later in life. But Arnold disagrees... Heinrich Arnold: I grew up going to school 20 years ago. Computers weren't a mainstay in the classroom and a lot of people my age, who are now computer geniuses didn't have that computer education in grade school or even high school. They got that later in college or on the job, and they are doing just fine. I think it's much more important to develop active thinking skills and creative skills, and computer skills can be learned later on as they are needed. If you start out with computer skills, it seemed that there was a deadening effect on students' minds and their creativity, and their ability just to do common sense, down to earth work. That seemed to be slipping. Andrew Zimmerman: Arnold says that rather than suffering from this drastic change, his students supported the reduction in classroom computing. Heinrich Arnold: I was surprised how positively the students took to this. Of course, we made an attempt to make it positive, you know... we said they would have more time to have fun, to get outdoors. We'd be more creative about what we were doing, and we sort of laid it out like a challenge. And our students have really rose to the occasion. We see that most in a journal we started up this year, that we came up with this title, "Log Off-Line." That is a totally handwritten journal about school events and community events. It's been an exciting project, and that's where we see a lot the the creativity that's coming from this decision, when the students have to write by hand their articles, their interviews. And then we have to make the suggestions, they have to recopy it through several stages, and finally make a nice copy neatly handwritten in the right format. You can't just click and drag and cut and chop and past. So it's a little more work. Andrew Zimmerman: To get a better idea of the journal with the tongue-in-cheek name, we spoke to three of the students involved with "Log Off-Line." Jared Domer, Dori Rhodes, and Trevor Wiser are seventh and eighth grade students in Arnold's class. Jared Domer: It's all written out by hand, which again makes it a lot more work, it's also a lot more creative. I mean, anyone can get on a computer and paste and cut and stuff, and it's not original art work, they didn't do it themselves. And it's also more pleasing to the eye, we thought that people would enjoy it more if it was hand written, and then they could acknowledge all the work that was put into it. Dori Rhodes: Before we started the magazine, we had gotten rid of the computers, so we knew we'd have to write it out by hand, and that it would look different. And we also were trying to think about what new columns that would be interesting, not just like little recipes. Jared Domer: When we started the magazine, we cut a lot back on our normal classes to fit in each issue, and it covers a lot of them, like writing and how to write reports, and so I think that was a good idea. Trevor Wiser: The magazine also gives us more opportunities to learn about real history, more then just what the textbooks would tell us. I did an article about Columbus, and doing research for it I was very shocked when comparing it with what the text books would tell me, from what I found in books by Howard Zinn, and diaries of people who went with Columbus. Jared Domer: I guess that all you seventh and eighth graders my age can... sure, you can spend a lot of time on the Internet, but if you make a magazine like this, it's something that's really going to stay with you, because you'll forget the stuff that you learn on the Internet pretty easily. And a lot of this stuff is a lot of other peoples' opinions, and what they're telling you. Phillip Babich: Jared Domer, preceded by Dori Rhodes and Trevor Wiser, students in Heinrich Arnold's seventh and eighth grade classes. This segment was produced by Andrew Zimmerman and Ben Wright of Bruderhof Radio, based in Rifton, New York. That's it for this edition of Making Contact: A look at education and technology. This has been a co-production of the National Radio Project and Bruderhof Radio. Thanks for listening. Laura Livoti is our managing director. Stephanie Welch is associate producer. Our executive director is Peggy Law. Norman Solomon is senior advisor. Our national producer is David Barsamian. Shereen Meraji is production assistant. Din Abdullah is archivist. And I'm your host and managing producer Phillip Babich. If you want more information about the subject of this week's program, call the National Radio Project at 800-529-5736. Call that same phone number for tapes and transcripts. That's 800-529-5736. Making Contact is an independent production. We're committed to providing a forum for voices and opinions not often heard in the mass media. If you have suggestions for future programs, we'd like to hear from you. Our theme music is by the Charlie Hunter Trio. 'Bye for now. |